DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Steve Dennett) (02/21/86)
> Date: 9 Feb 86 04:10:48 GMT > From: unmvax!nmtvax!fine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Andrew J Fine) > Let's ask ourselves a few questions: > **************************************************************************** > Does humanity (men and women) really *need* to populate space? Do we > really need to explore, in person or otherwise, other planets? Only if we want to remain human beings, creatures who can look past their immediate survival needs. Only if we want our race to survive when the earth becomes uninhabitable due to climatic changes/cosmic accident/ or political stupidity. > Historically, exploration and open boundaries only encouraged exploitation, > slavery, and genocide of indigenous peoples such as African, American > Natives, and East Asians. We are the solar system's only indigenous race, as far as we know. > It widened the gap between the rich and the poor > at home, and the massive funds spent on ships and weapons in that previous > era caused more people to starve. Are you certain that >exploration< caused the gap to widen? Since a great deal of wealth was returned from the New World, perhaps it was only the inequitable distribution of that weath (caused by the political system) that made this happen. And what about the poor who chose to become colonists/explorers, and became wealthy because of it? > It also increased the likelyhood of the > lawless being able to escape justice, for example Botany Bay and the HMS > Bounty. There will always be places the lawless can run to escape justice, for example Libya, South America, etc. > So what do we buy with $2 billion dollars? One shuttle, good for 100 > missions (best case) with 7 people each. Or enough food, clean water, and > other necesssities to feed Ethiopia for the next ten decades, easily. The Ethiopian problems are political; throwing money at them would make them >worse< by supporting the rulers who choose to export crops rather than feed their own people. > So what do space-faring nations prove when they invoke national prestige > and the desire of humanity to expand, by consuming all that money and > men-centuries? "I'm rich enough to do this and you're not, so there!". "My > rocket is bigger than yours!". "We are leaving you behind to scratch the > dust while we inherit the universe!" I agree that national prestige is a poor reason for space exploration; nationalism is pretty stupid in itself. Unfortuately, the people who rule us work at just that level, so such arguments often succeed where more "rational" reasons fail. > One man's glory is another man's > humiliation. One man's wealth is another man's poverty. One man's > livelihood is another man's serfdom. Only when wealth is a zero-sum game, as it will be if we stay on earth. > Why have satellites and information systems at all, except to invade the > privacy and keep records on a captive populace? Why have land and weather > satellites at all, except to take advantage of another nation's resources > and vulnerabilities? Would you like to fly or across the state or country, knowing that the pilot had no idea what weather conditions they might encounter during the trip? Would you like to give up all the channels of information that are now routed through satellites (telephone, television, data networks)? Would it be better for farmers to be surprized by sudden freezes, rather than warned so they can protect their crops? Communication satellites have been a boon to the Third World, bringing information and education into areas that could never be reached by strictly land-based means. > Why explore the planets, interesting though they are, except to find more > virgin landscape to despoil and riches to plunder? Why put a man, or a > women for that matter, in space? What is so special about anyone that we > must exhalt that person above all others in such an eletist fashion? Why > shouldn't that person be put to a task that serves the world rather than > that person's ego? Partly, we explore the planets because, to paraphrase Hilary, "They are there." Curiousity led man from the savannah to the city; when man is no longer curious, he will no longer be human. More pragmatically, we must explore because the universe may hold solutions to the problems we face here on earth. On the most basic level, our physical resources are finite, and space can supplement them. More speculatively, who knows what we may find out there? Cures for the many diseases that still plague us. New insights into the nature of the universe, which can be translated into technology to feed the hungry and shelter the poor. For example, what if we found a cheap, nearly inexhaustible power source; how about a method of predicting weather with >absolute certainty<. Perhaps all the dangerous and environmentally destructive industries could be moved off-planet, letting the earth become once again rustic and rural. > The main problem with all of us is we are still essentially barbarians at > heart. The Viking who was the explorer was also the Viking that also raped > and pillaged. The Columbus who was the explorer was also the Columbus who > converted people to his religion by force. The shuttle pilot who was the > explorer was also the pilot who killed husbands, wives, and children in > North Korea and North Vietnam. The ad hominem fallacy, and an untrue generalization. None of the above applies to Christa McAuliffe or any of the civilian scientists who have gone into space. Nor does it necessarily apply to those who have explored the arctic and the deep sea. "We" are many things, from headhunter to philosopher. > The wanderlust we all experience is just > another word for the lust and coveting for the outside world that blinds us > to the potentials of the inside world and the darkness of the soul that we > need to correct. Do we really deserve to go "out there" when we have such > a mess "down here"? Will staying "down here" as we have since the beginning of human history do anything to solve the mess "down here". Space exploration is no panacea but it may provide a place for experiments in human growth that will ultimately help man to reach ethical maturity. Just seeing the earth from the moon, as a single planet lacking any borders has catalyzed new ways of thinking. > Earth is enough for us, if we have the will to cooperate, to transcend the > bigotries that confound us, the borders that seperate us, to dare to have > peace instead of waging war, to share what we have as far as we can give it > without anyone having to pay for it ( the concept of having to work for > one's bread is deadly when there is not enough work to go around ), to > recognize that the most humble peasant in Mexico or India is worth more to > us than the President of the US or the Queen of England. Again, solving these problems is not mutually exclusive with space exploration. However, I wonder who will make the bread that we needn't work for, and who will hold the gun used to force the producers to give up what they have created. > If humanity can simply change from mere descendants of carnivorous apes to > something totally gentle, altrustic, and noble, then Earth will be enough. > We only try to escape the Earth because we try to escape our own natures. No, trying to reach out beyond our current environment is the epitomy of our curious ape-natures. > ************************************************************************** > I, personally, am in full support of the Shuttle, the Space Program, and > the exploration and exploition of space, and it's eventual population by > humanity. BUT NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US THESE QUESTIONS, NOBODY HAS EVER > CHALLENGED US TO QUESTION OURSELVES! We need to be able to answer them, > especially if those who have not, question the motives of us, those who > have. Somehow, net.space would benefit from a really in-depth discussion > of our justifications of our actions in space and thier consequences. > Andrew Jonathan Fine. These kinds of questions are asked every time NASA's budget is discussed whether in Congress or over cocktails. How many times have you heard or read the statement "Why spend money of space, when there's such a crying need for social services here on earth." I agree that anyone who supports space exploration must be able to answer these kinds of questions, and that discussion of the multitude of answers to them would be valuable. Steve Dennett dennett@sri-nic.arpa -------